Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

89 A.D.3d 1340, 934 N.Y.2d 243

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1340 (Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp., 89 A.D.3d 1340, 934 N.Y.2d 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Claimant was employed as a maintenance mechanic at a food packaging facility from 1961 to 2001. Throughout claimant’s employment, the company was sold several times. At the time of his retirement in 2001, claimant’s employer was Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, claimant was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease attributable to his workplace exposure to asbestos. Thereafter, claimant was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for an occupational disease, and the date of disablement was established as March 15, 2007. Ultimately, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the workers’ compensation carrier for Coors on the date of disablement, was liable for payment of this claim. Upon review, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. Zurich and Graphic Packaging now appeal.

Zurich and Graphic Packaging contend that they were denied the right to present proof disputing the claim and the record does not contain substantial evidence to establish that Coors was the employer and, therefore, that Zurich is the workers’ compensation insurance carrier liable for this claim. The record reflects that Zurich was put on notice of this claim in March 2009 and was present at two subsequent hearings but did not present any proof regarding its coverage for Graphic Packaging as a subsidiary of Coors despite the Board’s direction to do so. Accordingly, we find that claimant’s uncontroverted testimony provides substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that Graphic Packaging, a subsidiary of Coors, was the employer at the time of claimant’s retirement and that Zurich, [1341]*1341as the carrier for Coors on the date of disablement, is liable for this claim (see Matter of Mlodozeniec v Trio Asbestos Removal Corp., 66 AD3d 1174, 1175-1176 [2009]; Matter of Nathan v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 66 AD2d 933, 934 [1978], lv denied 46 NY2d 712 [1979]; see also Matter of Gude v Elm Coated Fabrics Div. of Grace Co., 79 AD2d 786, 787 [1980]).

Rose, J.R, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Claim of Mlodozeniec v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp.
66 A.D.3d 1174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Claim of Nathan v. Presbyterian Hospital
66 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Claim of Gude v. Elm Coated Fabrics Div. of W. R. Grace Co.
79 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 1340, 934 N.Y.2d 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longo-v-graphic-packaging-corp-nyappdiv-2011.